The renowned Ph.D., physicist and systems theorist, Fritjof Capra [more] wrote in 1975 in one of his books, The Tao of Physics, that the paradigm in which we in the western world live in, contains a view of the universe which is very “mechanical”: We consist of building blocks (DNA), life is a competitive struggle, progress equals economic and technological growth, etc. and he claimed that in order for the World to evolve past this point we have to create a paradigm shift, and one of his ideas is that of systemic and holistic thinking.

Now, slowly, winds are changing. Over the course of the last ten to fifteen years, we have become slightly wiser: We’ve discovered that our systematic exploitation of our world’s resources isn’t sustainable, as a result we have ecological products, we invented energy-efficient light-bulbs and ethical consumerism isn’t just for the weird neighbour down the block. These incitements are still in the wane, but more and more people are looking up to it. Wired magazine had a cover page about “The Next Green Revolution” and documentaries such as “An inconvenient truth”, “China Blue” etc. are having a more widespread appeal and so on, which is slowly paving a new path that perhaps, in the future, could lead to a paradigm shift.

But not only in terms of our environment, things are changing. Also in the personal realm, some new ideas are emerging. One is coined by the term “Creative man”, which states that society will increasingly be driven by creativity and innovation – and that these will increasingly be greater part of everyday life. Which you (boldly) could say is the antithesis of the way we think about innovation today, which is through hierarchical studies and analytical reductionism. Which is also the tools our current paradigm dictates us to use – a form of thinking that derived from the industrialism, which Sir Ken Robinson are talking about in his brilliant presentation about educational systems and creativity. He says that our educational system is predicated on the idea of academic ability and this does not work well in the way many, not all, people use their minds when we talk about creativity. He asks why we don’t teach our children the ability to dance as much as we teach them mathematics? Briefly, he states that in order for our minds to fully flourish – however this might lead us – we need to re-think the importance of creativity (which he defines as having original ideas that have value) and the way it is brought forward: It is diverse, it is dynamic (as it works by an interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things) and it is distinct and in the way we look upon children in the educational system, we undermine the ones that does not “fit” within this system because often they can’t function under these strict borders which they are given. And so we might end up loosing important creative ideas and thus the academics are experiencing an inflation where you don’t always end up having a job when you are graduated.

This idea of thinking in one way about creativity and all of a sudden also fits with the discoveries of David Galenson, a professor in the Department of Economics and the College at the University of Chicago. He discovered that creative geniuses roughly can be divided into two categories: Early and late bloomers. An example: Pablo Picasso peaked at the age of 26, Paul Cézanne at the age of 64. He undermine the common perception about early achievement: “If you haven’t written your best novel at forty, you might as well forget it!”. A lot of artist, writers, musicians, and also architects, scientists and academic achievers are at their best in their later years. Late bloomers, yes, but he actually got it in numbers. What does this teach us? That great achievements are not only for the young. Conceptualists (the early bloomers) are driven by theories – they know what they do before they set out to do it, the Experimentalists (the late bloomers) don’t always know why and how, probing, creating with trial and error until they come up with a unique way of conceiving. These are two very different, but equally important way of thinking and we tend to neglect the latter. (A transcription (pdf) of a lecture by Malcolm Gladwell posted on David Galeson’s home page is also worth the read).

Where does this lead us? Hopefully towards a better understanding of the ways of the mind in relation to getting the best out of people, helping them towards their true potential in a world that somehow has stagnated and only favours the young, factoid economic acheivers. And this is a very short-termed and superficial way of thinking in which we neglect things that has to be considered for the good of the future, thus also for the benefit of the present. Since we are moving away from the industrialised world we also need to rethink the way of which we can evolve, not only in the personal, but certainly also in the professional realm. This could eventually lead toward a new paradigm in where we’ll have a better, and more holistic understanding of ourselves and the world surrounding us.

On this day...

... in 2005: Stairway to Heaven
... in 2003: Eye of the beholder